F42: sepuku2: Hitler helped solve some of that.
By killing other Europeans? Remember the Arabs were his allies.

You know who else has Arab allies?

The British when they were fighting the Ottoman Empire?
The Americans when they were fighting Iran (by proxy)?

Jihad Hamad? Oh no, no, no, no...no way.

I take it he didn't fly much.

Hi, I'm Terrorist Tom.

Why not Bil Keane?

That's it! The next person to draw a cartoon of Moses or Abraham gets decapitated!

Biness: CheeseEatingBulldog: sepuku2: Remember Europe, unchecked multiculturalism is good.

yeah, that is why islamophbia is on the rise in Europe, the next war will be on the streets...fighting neighbours.

Islamophbia? Really? Sorry, but Europe has a long tradition of not veiling their women and honor killing a rap victim. Their culture is messed up, no sense in blaming supposed European racism

Thank you for the quick infusion of common sense into this thread.

Seriously.

Epsilon: "Religion of peace. But if you dis it, we'll kill you."

Why not generalize further?

sepuku2: I don't see it. I just see Europe rolling over.

They've already rolled over a few times I'd say. They'll either throw on the brakes and stop immigration, or more likely they'll just pick up speed.

But no worries, all the crazy muslims are just crazy because they're poor. When they get integrated and make more cash they'll be too affluent to get angry, just like the rest of us.

/Money is the true opiate of the masses

kramers_hair: Well, Europe has never, in its long history since the rise of Rome, tolerated minorities for very long.

Muslims: gone right after reconquest.
Jews: obvious

This post WWII period of tolerance has been interesting and I'm fascinated to see if it "takes".

Of course, some of the European Muslims are really putting it to the test.

Those are good points. It is fairly unique in history. Europe is so liberal now, I'm not sure they'll go against it. Then again, their social pendulum swings much more wildly than Americas

Tatsuma: Yes, killing 73 year old man will really show Allah how much of a great warrior you are, guys!

And the age of the offender matter, why?

I mean if a person deserves death (this person didn't I'm just making a point) then he deserves death regardless of how old he is.

mypalmike: Epsilon: "Religion of peace. But if you dis it, we'll kill you."

Why not generalize further?

cause theres no need. He nailed it

'No virgins for you!!!'

Unavailable for comment.

Gutter religion for cro mags.

dfacto: sepuku2: I don't see it. I just see Europe rolling over.

They've already rolled over a few times I'd say. They'll either throw on the brakes and stop immigration, or more likely they'll just pick up speed.

But no worries, all the crazy muslims are just crazy because they're poor. When they get integrated and make more cash they'll be too affluent to get angry, just like the rest of us.

/Money is the true opiate of the masses

Yes, and it's obviously the Jews who are making them poor, as witnessed by the skyrocketing anti-semitic violence of muslim against Jew in Europe, this isn't just about Israel folks.

Here's a tip that a few cultures of the world can take, DON'T HAVE SO MANY FARKING KIDS AND YOU WON'T BE SO FARKING POOR!

dfacto: But no worries, all the crazy muslims are just crazy because they're poor. When they get integrated and make more cash they'll be too affluent to get angry, just like the rest of us.

You should do a little more research on that theory.

Most suicide bombers don't come from poor families. The people at the glasglow airport last year were fricken doctors. This is more than just poor people acting out. But I guess i am a racist for pointing out the link between religion and savage acts.

stereosaur:
Here's a tip that a few cultures of the world can take, DON'T HAVE SO MANY FARKING KIDS AND YOU WON'T BE SO FARKING POOR!

It doesn't work that way. It makes economic sense for the poor to have (lots of) kids. You really need to lift people out of poverty and THEN they will (almost automatically) stop having as many kids.

respect

Funny how this PC society can be so accepting of hate for Islam. I think most of us would be uncomfortable if we saw anti-Jewish cartoons from 75 years ago, but they were acceptable at the time.

As much as I have the same questions about Islam claiming to be a religion of peace, I have to think that we will look back on this time of our history as a dark period of hatred.

stereosaur: Yes, and it's obviously the Jews who are making them poor, as witnessed by the skyrocketing anti-semitic violence of muslim against Jew in Europe, this isn't just about Israel folks.

Here's a tip that a few cultures of the world can take, DON'T HAVE SO MANY FARKING KIDS AND YOU WON'T BE SO FARKING POOR!

I'm going to assume you were kidding about the Jews, and ignore that.

On the kids front, there are alot of cultures that have needed alot of kids to not be poor. Farming cultures, which is what America was for most of our history, demanded extra children to work the land. This is why schools have summer vacation, so that kids could work the land and help the harvest. I can only assume such is the case for lot of the worlds poor who utilize subsistence farming. They need alot of kids to make sure enough survive to help with that land.

kramers_hair: It doesn't work that way. It makes economic sense for the poor to have (lots of) kids. You really need to lift people out of poverty and THEN they will (almost automatically) stop having as many kids.

Bullshiat.

It makes sense to have a lot of kids if you are poor and live in a rural environment (where you can make money off their work). In a city especially in a non-third world country more kids cost more, take up more time so they prevent you from futhering your education, saving money, and working longer.

kramers_hair: stereosaur:
Here's a tip that a few cultures of the world can take, DON'T HAVE SO MANY FARKING KIDS AND YOU WON'T BE SO FARKING POOR!

It doesn't work that way. It makes economic sense for the poor to have (lots of) kids. You really need to lift people out of poverty and THEN they will (almost automatically) stop having as many kids.

Yes, while bringing down the average quality of life for everyone. The world's population QUADRUPLED in the 20th century and it's not slowing down, you want to look at the realy reason behind famine, disease, pollution, etc. Look at the overall population.

liam76: dfacto: But no worries, all the crazy muslims are just crazy because they're poor. When they get integrated and make more cash they'll be too affluent to get angry, just like the rest of us.

You should do a little more research on that theory.

Most suicide bombers don't come from poor families. The people at the glasglow airport last year were fricken doctors. This is more than just poor people acting out. But I guess i am a racist for pointing out the link between religion and savage acts.

That is true, terrorism is more strongly correlated to lack of political freedom than economic freedom.

Of course, these conclusions are easy to draw when no one has ever really, you know, defined "terrorism".

It always seems to be like that fellows definition of pornography: I can't define it, but it knows it when I sees it.

stereosaur: kramers_hair: stereosaur:
Here's a tip that a few cultures of the world can take, DON'T HAVE SO MANY FARKING KIDS AND YOU WON'T BE SO FARKING POOR!

It doesn't work that way. It makes economic sense for the poor to have (lots of) kids. You really need to lift people out of poverty and THEN they will (almost automatically) stop having as many kids.

Yes, while bringing down the average quality of life for everyone. The world's population QUADRUPLED in the 20th century and it's not slowing down, you want to look at the realy reason behind famine, disease, pollution, etc. Look at the overall population.

Famine in the 20th Century was never caused by lack of food. It was caused by authoritarian governments withholding food from those they hated or could be a threat. Overpopulation had nothing to do with it

mks113: Funny how this PC society can be so accepting of hate for Islam. I think most of us would be uncomfortable if we saw anti-Jewish cartoons from 75 years ago, but they were acceptable at the time.

As much as I have the same questions about Islam claiming to be a religion of peace, I have to think that we will look back on this time of our history as a dark period of hatred.

I can see cartoon ten times worse than that about jews any day of the week. I can point tot hings like the Piss Christ in the US or virgin Mary in elephant shiat. The difference is that these other religions don;t kill people when stuff like this happens (or at least when people do the rest of the community labels them as the twisted savages they are).

The response that those cartoons drew pretty muich proved they weren't inspired by "hatred" but by a legitimate complaint about the behavior of muslims.

Biness: mypalmike: Epsilon: "Religion of peace. But if you dis it, we'll kill you."

Why not generalize further?

cause theres no need. He nailed it

99.999999% of Muslims were NOT plotting to kill the cartoonist. But hey, you're right. He did nail the generalization.

liam76: kramers_hair: It doesn't work that way. It makes economic sense for the poor to have (lots of) kids. You really need to lift people out of poverty and THEN they will (almost automatically) stop having as many kids.

Bullshiat.

It makes sense to have a lot of kids if you are poor and live in a rural environment (where you can make money off their work). In a city especially in a non-third world country more kids cost more, take up more time so they prevent you from futhering your education, saving money, and working longer.

Yes but the marginal cost of kids (the cost of each additional kid) is relatively small compared with the "ROI". They can start earning when they're relatively young (15, and that doesn't count any benefits) plus you need lots of kids to care for you when you're old and have no savings.

I'm sorry, but pretty much every sociologist in the (Western) world is with me on this.

Were they going to jump out at him and yell "BOO!!!!"?

Biness: CheeseEatingBulldog: sepuku2: Remember Europe, unchecked multiculturalism is good.

yeah, that is why islamophbia is on the rise in Europe, the next war will be on the streets...fighting neighbours.

Islamophbia? Really? Sorry, but Europe has a long tradition of not veiling their women and honor killing a rap victim. Their culture is messed up, no sense in blaming supposed European racism

Hey, don't get me wrong I am an islamophobe, can't stand the bloody bastards...

liam76: You should do a little more research on that theory.

Most suicide bombers don't come from poor families. The people at the glasglow airport last year were fricken doctors. This is more than just poor people acting out. But I guess i am a racist for pointing out the link between religion and savage acts.

This isn't a one or two generation thing, this is a 100+ year process. Look at what affluence has done to western society. You think our social progress would have stuck if everyone was still making peanuts off of farmwork? It was the cash, and everything that comes with it, education in particular being important. We're already seeing european muslims from the second generation breaking away from their traditional values. By the fourth generation they'll be a different group of people altogether.

The well-off terrorists are products of an old society. They may have money, but it hasn't poisoned their culture yet. But it will, as surely as the sun rises. It's what money does, just watch.

/Then again, poisoning their culture would ironically improve it.

Arachidonic: TheBogie69: If you're going to kill cartoonists, start with whoever writes Marmaduke. That comic just blows.

That and the freaking Family Circus. I really am just waiting for the strip where they are all killed by a drunk driver and can join ghost granpa and jeebus.

How to stop Family Circus FOREVER:

1). Whip up a quick PS of a Family Circus cartoon and add Mohammed to it. Maybe he forgets to wipe his feet or something, and one of the brats says "cleanliness is next to Allah-ness".

2). Post comic on the internet. Better yet, figure out a way to get the impostor into the normal print circulation.

3). Watch and wait while the Fatwas roll in.

liam76: mks113: Funny how this PC society can be so accepting of hate for Islam. I think most of us would be uncomfortable if we saw anti-Jewish cartoons from 75 years ago, but they were acceptable at the time.

As much as I have the same questions about Islam claiming to be a religion of peace, I have to think that we will look back on this time of our history as a dark period of hatred.

I can see cartoon ten times worse than that about jews any day of the week. I can point tot hings like the Piss Christ in the US or virgin Mary in elephant shiat.

You do know that neither Jesus nor Mary have much of anything to do with Judaism right (except in the most strained and contorted of ways)? Right?

But really, to sentence a person to death because of a cartoon? My god the asininity of it all. Asininity? Hey, that's a neat word. Even the spell checker liked it. Maybe asininity is next to divinity. What were we talking about? Oh, that's right... the asininity of certain divinities.

It alright for Muslims to offend others but it's a great surprise and affront when others offend them, and the people who do must die.... infidel pigs every one.

It's nothing new. It's called a double standard.
-One standard of rights for us and another for the infidels, because infidels have no rights... that's why in fundamentalist muslum countries we print anyone's non-muslimness on their driver's licence. It helps us know who to beat.-

(sepuku2- nice- you don't see the majority of rich muslims getting pissed off- they pay others to get pissed off for them)

kramers_hair: That is true, terrorism is more strongly correlated to lack of political freedom than economic freedom.

Of course, these conclusions are easy to draw when no one has ever really, you know, defined "terrorism".

It always seems to be like that fellows definition of pornography: I can't define it, but it knows it when I sees it.

Explain the tube bombings.

I would say it is more strongly correlated to faith.

mypalmike: Biness: mypalmike: Epsilon: "Religion of peace. But if you dis it, we'll kill you."

Why not generalize further?

cause theres no need. He nailed it

99.999999% of Muslims were NOT plotting to kill the cartoonist. But hey, you're right. He did nail the generalization.

did he say, "yea, all the muslims wanted this one guy dead and they were all in on it"? You can't really argue that the supposed religion of peace is, in reality, horribly violent

Biness: stereosaur: Yes, and it's obviously the Jews who are making them poor, as witnessed by the skyrocketing anti-semitic violence of muslim against Jew in Europe, this isn't just about Israel folks.

Here's a tip that a few cultures of the world can take, DON'T HAVE SO MANY FARKING KIDS AND YOU WON'T BE SO FARKING POOR!

I'm going to assume you were kidding about the Jews, and ignore that.

On the kids front, there are alot of cultures that have needed alot of kids to not be poor. Farming cultures, which is what America was for most of our history, demanded extra children to work the land. This is why schools have summer vacation, so that kids could work the land and help the harvest. I can only assume such is the case for lot of the worlds poor who utilize subsistence farming. They need alot of kids to make sure enough survive to help with that land.

I am Jewish and that statement was on defense against anti-semitic violence.

And on the kids issue, yes, when there weren't that many people and plenty of land and when medicine wasn't so hot and might lose a few to Cholera, it made sense to have a lot of kids. BUt now with a suburban/urban culture more kids just take up more space, don't contribute and become more and more arseholes who don't know how to drive but somehow have the privelige of driving a car.

liam76: kramers_hair: That is true, terrorism is more strongly correlated to lack of political freedom than economic freedom.

Of course, these conclusions are easy to draw when no one has ever really, you know, defined "terrorism".

It always seems to be like that fellows definition of pornography: I can't define it, but it knows it when I sees it.

Explain the tube bombings.

I would say it is more strongly correlated to faith.

Explain Sri Lanka.

Explain WWII Japan.

Explain US Firebombing of Dresden.

Hell, explain American Idol (until you give me a closed and complete definition of terrorism, I will continue to view this as a crime against humanity).

liam76: Explain the tube bombings.

I would say it is more strongly correlated to faith.



disagrees

/Baaaaaaaaaaaabbbbyyy

If all the world's newspapers had reprinted the cartoon, and the cartoon had been on TV, there would have been no effective protest by muslims.

Instead, the media chickened out and didn't do its job. The cartoon was certainly news once the killing started, and should have gotten a lot of play.

Stand up to these assholes.

Biness: stereosaur: kramers_hair: stereosaur:
Here's a tip that a few cultures of the world can take, DON'T HAVE SO MANY FARKING KIDS AND YOU WON'T BE SO FARKING POOR!

It doesn't work that way. It makes economic sense for the poor to have (lots of) kids. You really need to lift people out of poverty and THEN they will (almost automatically) stop having as many kids.

Yes, while bringing down the average quality of life for everyone. The world's population QUADRUPLED in the 20th century and it's not slowing down, you want to look at the realy reason behind famine, disease, pollution, etc. Look at the overall population.

Famine in the 20th Century was never caused by lack of food. It was caused by authoritarian governments withholding food from those they hated or could be a threat. Overpopulation had nothing to do with it

So overfarming, land exhaustion, lack of water, overgrazing, desertion has never contributed to famine. Oh okay, yeah you sound like you know what you're talking about. Blame it on a government and you sound cool.

mypalmike: 99.999999% of Muslims were NOT plotting to kill the cartoonist. But hey, you're right. He did nail the generalization.

True, but what percentage of muslims would have cheered at the cartoonist death? A lot more than 0.000001%.

kramers_hair: Yes but the marginal cost of kids (the cost of each additional kid) is relatively small compared with the "ROI". They can start earning when they're relatively young (15, and that doesn't count any benefits) plus you need lots of kids to care for you when you're old and have no savings.

I'm sorry, but pretty much every sociologist in the (Western) world is with me on this.

Sorry but if you are dirt poor in a first world country your kids aren't going to be a huge source of revenue, and they are a lot less likely to take care of yoou when you are old than in a thrid world country. You are much better off financially using the extra time that raising more kids takes on getting a better job, getting a better education or just saving the money that the kid would cost you.

sociologists may agree that poor have more kids but I doubt any think that poor are better off financially by having more kids (especially since more normally = having them younger, preventing you from an education). A lot of people are poor because of bad economic decisions. Having kids young is one of the worst economic decisions you can make, but if the wife is encouraged not to work there isn't much to do besides popping out babies.

stereosaur: And on the kids issue, yes, when there weren't that many people and plenty of land and when medicine wasn't so hot and might lose a few to Cholera, it made sense to have a lot of kids. BUt now with a suburban/urban culture more kids just take up more space, don't contribute and become more and more arseholes who don't know how to drive but somehow have the privelige of driving a car.

But in that same vein, whilst having tons of kids today in America and Europe would undoubtedly be a handicap without the means to provide for them, I don't think the same can be said for Africa, Asia, and South America. So long as they are rural.

Wow! There's so much bigotry in this thread; There isn't even a discussion.

/stay classy

Farking Canuck: mypalmike: 99.999999% of Muslims were NOT plotting to kill the cartoonist. But hey, you're right. He did nail the generalization.

True, but what percentage of muslims would have cheered at the cartoonist death? A lot more than 0.000001%.

Irrelevant. Hell, I would cheer the murder of Paul Bernardo but that doesn't mean I'm encouraging someone to kill him.

You're essentially advocating a form of thoughtcrime.

Inflatable Rhetoric: If all the world's newspapers had reprinted the cartoon, and the cartoon had been on TV, there would have been no effective protest by muslims.

Instead, the media chickened out and didn't do its job. The cartoon was certainly news once the killing started, and should have gotten a lot of play.

Stand up to these assholes.

Agreed, it's the same with radio in this country, many great personalities are being silenced and censored because of just a bad choice of words because a minority interest threat. Don't get me wrong, I don't defend everything they say, but they shouldn't be fired , etc for it. Free speech is being held hostage by forced politeness. Imus, O&A, Shuster . . . it's a shame.

stereosaur: So overfarming, land exhaustion, lack of water, overgrazing, desertion has never contributed to famine. Oh okay, yeah you sound like you know what you're talking about. Blame it on a government and you sound cool.

I wasn't going for "cool". I suggest you check out PJ O'Rourke's "All the Trouble in the World." Details very accurately how no famine in the 20th century was caused by overpopulation, but was instead cause by government decisions. Somalia in the early 90's, for example, had record crops which were seized by the ruling warlord. As was the bountiful humanitarian aid from the rest of the world.

I only spoke on famine, but good job jumping to conclusions and not reading what I acutally read.